easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The company should not move its headquarters. Moving would be expensive, and we have already invested millions in our current building. Besides, if we move once, we will eventually feel forced to move every five years as the market changes.
The argument proceeds by
- combining concrete cost-based objections with a prediction that one move would spiral into repeated relocations.
- contending that one defective component of an otherwise sound relocation plan renders the entire plan unworkable.
- citing a specific past relocation to show that such moves have always turned out badly for the company.
- deferring to a named real estate authority's published assessment of the city's current commercial market.
- demonstrating that relocating the headquarters would, beyond any conceivable doubt, soon bankrupt the company.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ